We have included in the note to this section a brief digest of the late Michigan cases from Volume 189 to 213, inclusive, where the relief by way of specific performance has been granted.33

28. Bradley v. May, 214 Mich. 194.

29. Dinnen v. Bloomfield Hills Co., 214 Mich. 55.

30. Watkins v. Miner, 214 Mich. 380.

31. Watkins v. Miner, 214 Mich. 380.

32. Marussa v. Timerowski, 204 Mich. 271.

Specific Performance - Relief Granted.

33. Hubbel v. Ohler, 213 Mich. 664. Relief from forfeiture and specific performance granted under certain conditions.

Woodward v. Porter, 213 Mich. 314. Held bill of complaint sufficient for specific performance.

Lyle v. Munson, 213 Mich. 250. Contract followed by part performance upheld although made on Sunday. Court invoked the principle of equitable estoppel.

Bland v. Bland, 213 Mich. 549. Holding wife authorized to have antenuptial contract specifically performed.

Niemetta v. Teakle, 210 Mich. 590. Specific performance compelling execution of mortgage on land situated in other county.

Engle v. Engle, 209 Mich. 275. Partly performed oral contract specifically performed also against defendant's wife, who was a party to the agreement.

Nickerson v. Nickerson, 209 Mich. 134. Oral agreement partly performed.

Hager v. Rey, 209 Mich. 194. Involving question of tender, and laches in making payment.

McCrilles v. Sutton, 207 Mich. 58. Relief granted in contract between foster parents and plaintiff as against heirs at law of estate of said foster parents.

Pendergart v. Pendergart, 206

Mich. 526. Parol contract involving acts and declarations of deceased persons, family dealings, etc.

Marussa v. Temerowski, 204 Mich. 271. Where plaintiffs were entitled to decree but defendants could not perform because property had been sold to bona fide purchaser, decree for damages held equitable.

Kendall v. Chase, 203 Mich. 660. Involving conveyance of farm in consideration of plaintiff's support during her natural life as evidenced by agreement. Plaintiff granted relief even though it exhaust the land in so doing.

George v. Schuman, 202 Mich. 241. Involving option and adequacy of consideration.

Pearson v. Gardner, 202 Mich. 360. Contract itself not sufficient under statute of frauds, but vendees had paid part of the purchase price and taken possession and exercised acts of possession and ownership.

Fowler v. Isbell, 202 Mich. 572 Oral contract for sale of land but plaintiff had performed her part under section^ 11979, 3 Comp. Laws 1915.

Barker v. Finley, 200 Mich. 166. This involved credit for $1,000.00 ou contract, which $1,000.00 had not been paid and which was never intended to be paid.

Kerwin Machine Co. v. Baker, 199 Mich. 122. Involving verbal agreement in connection with written contract, which verbal terms could not be complied with. Court held the written contract was definite in its terms and not changeable by parol evidence.

Gates v. McLaulin, 199 Mich. 438.

Specific performance will be decreed where there has been an entry upon land and part performance of the contract. Green v. Reder, 199-594.

The fact that the real estate has increased in value is not a suffi cient ground for denial of a decree for specific performance and equity may decree the performance of an agreement to execute a land contract. Ogooshevitz v. Arnold, 197-203.

Specific performance of an oral agreement for a lease will be decreed where the evidence showed plaintiff made certain improvements and rented additional buildings, which, according to the oral agreement, would entitle plaintiff to an extension of the lease for a certain period. Charlet v. Teackle, 197-426.

A vendee appearing at the appointed time and place ready and willing to pay, and vendor failed to appear a sufficient tender was made to entitle vendee to specific performance of a land contract, and it was not necessary that the vendee tender a deed to be executed by the vendor. Fraser v. Hovey, 195-161.

Specific performance will be decreed of a lease of premises which gives plaintiff the right to purchase, where he made valuable improvements on the premises and built up a good business, and it would be hard to purchase other premises nearby, and difficult to compensate plaintiff in dollars, although value of premises had increased since execution of lease. Nowicki v. Ko petczak, 195-678.

Specific performance of a land contract was decreed and a divi-